2 resident, brings this civil rights complaint against Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo (“Sheriff 3 Lombardo”) and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) (collectively 4 “Defendants”). Mr. Adame-Reyes seeks redress for the harm he suffered as a direct result of 5 Defendants’ harmful, unlawful policy, custom, and practice of arresting and confining community 6 members to the county jail, without probable cause that these community members committed a 7 criminal offense, on the sole basis of “hold requests” from U.S. Immigration and Customs 8 Enforcement (“ICE”). An ICE hold is an administrative request to hold an individual for a 9 suspected civil immigration violation, which is not an authorized basis for arrest in Nevada. An 10 ICE hold does not mandate detention and provides no legal authority to detain an individual. Yet, 11 Defendants Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 12 Department have twice detained Mr. Adame-Reyes without legal authority, after he was due to be9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 released from their custody, for suspected civil immigration issues. The extrajudicial arrests and HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 detentions of Mr. Adame-Reyes without probable cause that he committed a criminal offense and 15 on the sole basis of an ICE hold, pursuant to and in accordance with Defendants’ policy, custom, 16 and practice, violated the United States Constitution and Nevada law. Defendants’ 17 unconstitutional actions, and the actions of those working under the direction of their policy and 18 custom, have subjected Mr. Adame-Reyes and many others in the community to serious and 19 enduring harms. 20 INTRODUCTION 21 1. Mr. Adame-Reyes brings this civil rights complaint against Sheriff Lombardo, in 22 his personal and official capacities, and the LVMPD. This action is based on Defendants’ policy, 23 custom, and practice of granting “hold requests” from ICE officials (referred to herein as “ICE 24 holds,” but also known as “immigration holds,” “ICE hold requests,” “ICE detainers,” or 25 “immigration detainers”) and detaining those subject to them in the Clark County Detention Center 26 (“CCDC”) beyond the time when the law required they be released. 27 2. An ICE hold does not provide probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that an 28 individual has committed a criminal offense, and it thus provides no legal authority to arrest and

2 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 24

1 detain a person. Jailing individuals on the basis of an ICE hold alone represents a voluntary 2 decision that violates the U.S. Constitution and Nevada law. Defendants’ policy, custom, and 3 practice subjected Mr. Adame-Reyes—and countless other community members—to arrest and 4 detention in violation of federal and state law and thereby caused Mr. Adame-Reyes significant 5 harms, including the deprivation of his liberty and due process, false imprisonment, and emotional 6 distress. 7 3. The unlawful arrest and detention of Mr. Adame-Reyes, carried out pursuant to and 8 in accordance with Defendants’ stated policy, custom, and practice of jailing individuals like him 9 solely on the basis of ICE hold requests, was unconstitutional. The harms Defendants inflicted on 10 Mr. Adame-Reyes, other individuals subjected to unlawful arrest and detention, their families, and 11 the larger community have been grave and lasting. Detention for even a relatively brief period can 12 cause an individual to lose a job, leave a family without its breadwinner, and leave children without9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 a parent and at risk of suffering lasting trauma. It removes active and contributing community HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 members from the community. The due process protections afforded by our judicial systems 15 deteriorate in the face of these unauthorized arrests as detention makes it harder for Mr. Adame- 16 Reyes and similarly situated individuals to defend themselves and present their own meritorious 17 claims, whether in the context of criminal or immigration cases. 18 4. Defendants’ policy, custom, and practice of carrying out arrests and detention on 19 the sole basis of ICE holds, in Mr. Adame-Reyes’s case and for so many others, has had ripple 20 effects far beyond those who have themselves suffered the arrests and detention, which, as 21 indicated on the face of the ICE hold, could last for days. The entanglement of local law 22 enforcement agencies in civil immigration enforcement is widely regarded as undermining trust in 23 local law enforcement officers, deterring the reporting of crimes, and inhibiting witnesses from 24 coming forward. Of particular import, immigrant survivors of violence become less likely to seek 25 police protection for fear of what may happen to them or to loved ones. In one recent survey of 26 hundreds of victims’ advocates and attorneys across 42 states, one U.S. territory, and the District 27

28

3 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 24

1 of Columbia, 76.25% reported that immigrant survivors are fearful of contacting the police. 1 In a 2 number of localities where authorities are, or are perceived to be, collaborating with federal 3 immigration authorities, there have, for example, been significant declines in reporting by Latina 4 women of rape and domestic violence.2 5 5. Collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities, such as 6 through the granting of ICE holds, wastes scarce resources and causes economic and other harm 7 to the local community. Such collaboration efforts have been associated with racial profiling and 8 heightened concerns about police arresting Latinx individuals for pretextual reasons. 3 Records 9 show that between 2017 and 2018, in connection with immigration enforcement efforts, Las Vegas 10 law enforcement officials took hundreds of Latinx individuals into custody for low-level offenses 11 like jaywalking or driving with a broken taillight. 4 12 6. Mr. Adame-Reyes’s experience follows a similar pattern. Defendants arrested Mr.9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 Adame-Reyes on August 21, 2018, on suspicion of his committing a minor criminal offense. Local HOLLAND & HART LLP

1 Adame-Reyes was advised almost immediately after his transport to CCDC that he would be 2 released on his own recognizance. 3 7. Despite this same-day order of release, Defendants incarcerated him overnight 4 solely on the basis of an ICE hold after Mr. Adame-Reyes was questioned about his immigration 5 status. Afterward, Defendants handed him over to ICE, an agency within the Department of 6 Homeland Security (“DHS”), which led to his detention for approximately four months. 7 8. On August 17, 2019, Defendants arrested Mr. Adame-Reyes again on suspicion of 8 committing a criminal offense. While the charges against Mr. Adame-Reyes were once again 9 dismissed, Defendants continued to detain him in order to question him about his immigration 10 status and allow ICE to take custody of him. Mr. Adame-Reyes has been in federal custody ever 11 since. 12 9. An ICE hold provides no legal authority for Defendants and their officers to detain9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 Mr. Adame-Reyes or anyone else who has been subjected to Defendants’ voluntary decision to HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 arrest and detain on the basis of an ICE hold request. Detention on the sole basis of an ICE hold 15 constitutes a new “arrest” under federal and state law. The Fourth Amendment and Article 1, 16 Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution require that every arrest be justified by the issuance of a 17 warrant by a neutral judge based on a finding of probable cause or, in the case of a warrantless 18 arrest, that the arrest be supported by probable cause and be reviewed by a neutral judge within 48 19 hours of arrest. An ICE hold meets none of these requirements. It does not support a finding of 20 probable cause that a criminal infraction has occurred, and a judge conducts no review of an ICE 21 hold – not before and not after Defendants have made the decision to detain an individual on the 22 basis of an ICE hold. 23 10. Defendants’ ICE holds policy evinced a deliberate indifference to Mr. Adame- 24 Reyes’s constitutional rights and was the moving force behind the constitutional violations. As a 25 result of Defendants’ policy and practices, despite being ordered released from criminal custody, 26 Mr. Adame-Reyes was unlawfully re-arrested and detained without probable cause or other legal 27 authority when Defendants honored the ICE hold placed on him. Thus, Defendants violated Mr. 28 Adame-Reyes’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. His arrest

5 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 6 of 24

1 and detention by Defendants on the basis of an ICE hold also violated state law, which limits the 2 arrest authority of Nevada police in non-criminal matters. 3 11. More recently, after subjecting Mr. Adame-Reyes to yet another arrest and period 4 of detention for a suspected civil immigration violation, Defendants acknowledged in a press 5 release that “Nevada does not have a statute authorizing an arrest for civil immigration violations” 6 – which has long been the law – and announced that LVMPD would cease honoring ICE holds. A 7 true and correct copy of this press release, dated October 23, 2019, is attached to this complaint as 8 Exhibit A. Defendants’ asserted policy change decision does not redress the harm that Mr. 9 Adame-Reyes suffered and provides little assurance that Defendants will not resume their policy 10 and practice. Mr. Adame-Reyes thus seeks declaratory relief and damages from Defendants 11 resulting from his unlawful seizure, the violation of his due process rights, his false imprisonment, 12 and the harm caused by the Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress.9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 12. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 15 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the laws of the State of Nevada. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 16 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and Article III of the U.S. Constitution. 17 13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claims 18 arising under Nevada law, as they are so related to claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction 19 that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. 20 14. Venue is proper in this Court as the events and conduct complained of herein 21 occurred in the District of Nevada. 22 PARTIES 23 15. Plaintiff David Adame-Reyes is a longtime resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. 24 Adame-Reyes is a 36-year-old man with deep ties to Nevada, where he has resided for 25 approximately fifteen years with his family. Mr. Adame-Reyes has limited vision, having lost an 26 eye as a child, but is nonetheless a hardworking member of the community, working in 27 construction and auto-mechanics. He is presently detained at Nye County Detention Center in 28

6 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 7 of 24

1 Pahrump, Nevada for his immigration case, which was initiated following his arrest and detention 2 on the basis of an ICE hold. 3 16. Defendant Joseph Lombardo is the Sheriff of Clark County, a municipality and 4 political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Sheriff Lombardo is sued in his individual capacity 5 and in his official capacity. Sheriff Lombardo is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Chief 6 Administrative Officer of LVMPD and is responsible for the management and control of all 7 LVMPD jails and the custody of all inmates housed in the LVMPD jails, including CCDC. As 8 such, he is responsible for formulating the policies that govern the custody of all individuals held 9 at CCDC and for the training and supervision of LVMPD officers. Sheriff Lombardo has ultimate 10 supervisory authority over CCDC. In his official capacity, he is also responsible for the acts and 11 omissions of his agents and employees at CCDC. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sheriff 12 Lombardo acted or failed to act under color of state law.9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 he had personal knowledge of, and set in motion the policy, custom, and practice of honoring ICE 15 holds, and he personally refused to terminate this policy and practice in the training, supervision, 16 and control of his subordinates. Sheriff Lombardo knew or reasonably should have known that 17 the ICE holds policy, custom, and practice were so deficient that they repudiated and deprived Mr. 18 Adame-Reyes of his clearly established constitutional rights. Well before Mr. Adame-Reyes was 19 unlawfully arrested and detained, Sheriff Lombardo was personally informed and knew of both 20 the lack of authority under Nevada law to make arrests for civil immigration violations and the 21 unconstitutionality of effectuating arrests and detention on the basis of ICE hold requests and 22 without probable cause, and he was further aware that ICE hold requests were being routinely 23 granted, with numerous individuals being re-arrested and detained solely on the basis of ICE holds 24 and well past their judicially-authorized release dates.5 Without these policies, which Sheriff 25 Lombardo himself put in place and had implemented by and through his officers, the violations of 26 5 See Exhibit E (March 15, 2018 letter from legal advocates informing Sheriff Lombardo and 27 LVMPD of substantial legal authority holding that ICE holds do not mandate detention and do not provide probable cause to support an arrest); Exhibit F (March 28, 2018 letter from Sheriff 28 Lombardo stating that LVMPD declined to discontinue honoring ICE holds); infra para. 41.

7 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 8 of 24

1 Mr. Adame-Reyes’s constitutional rights would not have occurred. Sheriff Lombardo is thus also 2 liable in his individual capacity because he personally knew of these violations and failed to 3 prevent them. 4 18. Defendant LVMPD is the police agency responsible for all police services within 5 the City of Las Vegas and the unincorporated areas of Clark County, the two major municipalities 6 and political subdivisions in the greater Las Vegas Valley metropolitan area of the State of Nevada. 7 Defendant LVMPD’s employees engaged in the acts complained of pursuant to the policies, 8 practices, and customs of Sheriff Lombardo and the LVMPD. 9 19. Each of the Defendants, their employees, and agents participated personally in the 10 unlawful conduct challenged herein and, to the extent that they did not personally participate, 11 authorize, or acquiesce in such conduct, they nevertheless set in motion or otherwise failed to take 12 necessary steps to prevent the acts that resulted in the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct and9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 the harm suffered by Mr. Adame-Reyes. Each acted in concert with each other. The challenged HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 acts caused the violation of Mr. Adame-Reyes’s rights.

15 FACTS & LEGAL BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 16 A. The Fourth Amendment Prohibits Arrests for Civil Disputes 17 20. “The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures 18 that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 19 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). 20 21. Under the Fourth Amendment, “a fair and reliable determination of probable cause” 21 must be provided “as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty.” Baker v. 22 McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142 (1979). 23 22. If an individual is “kept in custody for a new purpose after [the individual is] 24 entitled to release, [that individual] was subjected to a new seizure for Fourth Amendment 25 purposes—one that must be supported by a new probable cause justification.” Id. 26 23. Probable cause to support a new arrest or seizure of a person can only exist when 27 the facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the 28

8 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 9 of 24

1 individual subject to arrest or seizure had or was committing a criminal offense. See Gerstein v. 2 Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111–12; Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 24. Civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause to support an arrest or seizure that 4 complies with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 111–12; 5 Allen, 73 F.3d at 237. 6 25. “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable [noncitizen] to remain present 7 in the United States.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012). 8 26. Further, deportation and removal proceedings are “civil in nature.” Padilla v. 9 Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010). 10 27. Thus, the lower federal courts have universally recognized that the Fourth 11 Amendment’s probable cause requirement for warrantless arrests and seizures prohibits “local law 12 enforcement officers from arresting individuals solely based on known or suspected civil9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 2013) (collecting cases).

15 B. Background on ICE Holds 16 28. An ICE hold does not provide probable cause that a criminal infraction has been 17 committed by the individual named in the hold request. Unlike criminal detainers or holds, an ICE 18 hold is not accompanied by a judicial warrant or judicial determination of probable cause that a 19 criminal infraction has been committed. Rather, it is an administrative request, signed by a single 20 ICE officer or deputized local officer. Although ICE also refers to its holds as “detainers,” they 21 are not accompanied by the same procedural protections as criminal detainers and do not carry the 22 same force of law. 23 29. An ICE hold requests, but does not require, that a local law enforcement agency or 24 officer – in this case, Sheriff Lombardo and LVMPD – hold an individual for up to 48 hours 25 (excluding weekends and federal holidays) beyond the time when the individual would otherwise 26 be released from local custody. While ICE holds request detention for 48 hours, the granting of 27 such holds can impose significantly lengthier detention times because weekends and federal 28

9 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 10 of 24

1 holidays are not counted as being part of the 48 hours (and in some cases, local authorities have 2 held individuals longer than the period of time specified in the hold request). 3 30. An ICE hold appears on an administrative form (Form I-247A) used by ICE that 4 advises local officials that DHS may desire to initiate civil immigration proceedings against an 5 individual and/or assume custody of an individual. A true and correct copy of Form I-247A is 6 attached to this complaint as Exhibit B. 7 31. An ICE hold provides no legal authority to detain an individual after the conclusion 8 of a lawful custody that was based on traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges. 9 32. In issuing an ICE hold, an ICE officer—or a local official deputized as a “287(g) 10 officer” (see infra ¶¶ 31-36)—simply checks a box on the ICE hold form asserting that the officer 11 has evidence that the individual is subject to removal from the United States. As a primary 12 “evidentiary” source for these holds, ICE commonly employs various databases that are9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 notoriously unreliable and prone to both human and mechanical error. 6 ICE has made these hold HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 requests to Sheriff Lombardo and LVMPD on the mere suspicion that an individual has committed 15 a civil immigration violation, which does not meet the requisite legal standard to support an arrest 16 or detention. 17 33. ICE holds are sometimes accompanied by an I-200 administrative arrest warrant. 18 Like the ICE hold, the administrative warrant does not indicate any basis for arrest resulting from 19 a violation of criminal law, nor is it accompanied by a judicial determination of probable cause 20 that a crime has been committed. Also like the ICE hold request, ICE administrative warrants are 21 issued by a single ICE officer based on that officer’s own finding that there is probable cause to 22 believe that a person is removable. Often, an ICE officer’s finding of probable cause to believe a 23 person is removable is based on unreliable data and biased policing tactics like racial profiling. 24 While both the ICE hold and the administrative arrest warrant are supposed to be served upon the 25 affected individual, this does not always happen. 26

1 34. Even when the individual subject to the ICE hold and administrative warrant has 2 been timely served with the appropriate copies, neither ICE nor Sheriff Lombardo has provided an 3 administrative procedure for challenging the issuance of the ICE hold or administrative warrant. 4 Likewise, the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to consider 5 challenges to ICE holds because it has found that individuals held on ICE holds are not in federal 6 custody.7 Thus, those subjected to ICE holds, like Mr. Adame-Reyes, have effectively been left 7 without a viable remedy or due process to challenge their unlawful detention. 8 C. Lack of Legal Authority to Detain on Sole Basis of an ICE Hold 9 35. When LVMPD continues to maintain custody of a person solely on the basis of an 10 ICE hold, this detention constitutes a new “arrest” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. 11 Constitution.8 12 36. To undertake a new arrest, including by honoring an ICE hold, LVMPD must9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 comply with the Fourth Amendment and Section 8-8a of the Nevada Constitution and ensure that HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 the new arrest be authorized by both federal and state law.

15 37. An arrest based only on an ICE hold violates the Fourth Amendment and Nevada 16 law because Nevada law enforcement officers have no authority to make arrests for civil 17 immigration offenses, as Defendants themselves have publicly acknowledged. 9 18 /// 19

20 7 21 See Matter of Sanchez, 20 I. & N. Dec. 223, 226 (BIA 1990) (vacating the immigration judge’s order considering an immigration hold for lack of jurisdiction since “the respondent was in the 22 actual physical custody of the State of Maryland”); see also Matter of Lehder, 15 I. & N. Dec. 159, 161 (BIA 1975) (“If [respondent] wishes to be relieved of the consequences of the [immigration] 23 detainer, he should seek a remedy from the present custodial authorities rather than from [the federal immigration agencies].”); Matter of Valdovinos, 18 I. & N. Dec. 343, 345 (BIA 1982) 24 (“claims as to the unconstitutionality of the statutes and regulations administered by this Board are outside the scope of our jurisdiction”). 25 8 See, e.g., Roy v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV-12-09012-AB (FFMx), 2018 WL 914773, at *23 26 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) (“[W]here a ‘continued detention exceed[s] the scope of the Jail’s lawful authority over the released detainee,’ the detention ‘constitute[s] a new arrest, and must be 27 analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.’”) (citing Miranda–Olivares v. Clackamas Cty., No. 3:12– cv–02317–ST, 2014 WL 1414305, at *10 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2014)). 9 28 See Exhibit A.

11 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 12 of 24

1 38. Nevada law provides only limited authority to Nevada law enforcement agencies 2 to make arrests for enumerated state civil matters. 10 Civil immigration enforcement is not one of 3 the enumerated situations permitting an arrest for a civil matter. 11 The Nevada Attorney General 4 recognized this in a 1983 opinion that concluded that “Nevada peace officers should act cautiously 5 in enforcing federal laws … and should not detain or arrest a person solely on the basis that this 6 individual might be … deportable.”12 7 39. Federal law similarly does not afford Defendants authority to undertake an arrest 8 based on an ICE hold. The federal government maintains the sole power to establish and enforce 9 immigration laws, which are codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 13 As part 10 of that scheme, Congress dramatically limited the specific circumstances in which local law 11 enforcement may aid the federal government in immigration enforcement. 14 Those specific 12 circumstances do not authorize LVMPD to make arrests or detain individuals on the basis of an9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 ICE hold.15 HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 40. Even where federal law allows for some involvement of local officers in 15 immigration enforcement, the INA strictly limits the role such officers can play. “Local law 16 enforcement officers may assist in federal immigration enforcement efforts under 8 U.S.C. § 17 1357(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into agreements with local law 18 enforcement agencies that allow specific officers to perform [limited] functions of federal 19

20 10 See NEV. REV. STAT. § 31.470 (“No person shall be arrested in a civil action except as prescribed 21 by this chapter.”). 11 See NEV. REV. STAT. § 31.480 (specifying five instances in which a defendant may be arrested 22 in a civil action, none of which include arrest for civil immigration violations or pursuant to an ICE hold). 23 12 See Op. Att’y Gen. Opinion No. 83-16 (Nov. 23, 1983), 1983 WL 171453; see also Dinitz v. 24 Christensen, 577 P.2d 873, 875 (Nev. 1978) (“Law-enforcement officers may make arrests only on ‘probable cause,’ a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to states, as well as 25 the federal government.”) (emphasis added). 13 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq. 26 14 See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 408–09 (2012). 15 27 Accord Gonzalez, 2019 WL 4734579, at *17 (“[E]ven where federal law permits state or local officers to make civil immigration arrests, the authority for such arrests must come from state 28 law.”) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(g)(1), 1252c(a)).

12 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 13 of 24

1 immigration officers.”16 Named for the section of the INA that authorizes them, such agreements 2 are referred to as “287(g) Agreements.”17 3 41. Participation in the 287(g) program does not give state or local law enforcement 4 entities authority to make arrests for civil immigration violations, nor does it grant them authority 5 to detain individuals beyond what is allowed under state law. 6 42. On or about June 28, 2016, Sheriff Lombardo and ICE executed a 287(g) 7 Agreement, allowing participating LVMPD officers to perform specified immigration functions. 18 8 A true and correct copy of the Clark County MOA is attached to this complaint as Exhibit C. The 9 Clark County MOA, principally, gave specified LVMPD officers (“287(g) officers”) the authority 10 to issue the same administrative forms that ICE issues. 11 43. Specifically, and as pertinent here, the Clark County MOA permitted the deputized 12 287(g) officers to serve administrative arrest warrants for immigration violations. The Clark9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 County MOA also allowed deputized 287(g) officers to interrogate any person detained in the HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 participating LVMPD detention center whom the officer believed to be an undocumented

15 immigrant about their right to be in the United States. Additionally, the Clark County MOA 16 authorized deputized 287(g) officers to issue ICE hold requests on individuals believed to be 17 removable. See Exhibit C. 18 44. Notably, the Clark County MOA has not provided any authority to make arrests for 19 civil immigration violations, nor has it provided any authority to grant an ICE hold request and 20 detain an individual on that sole basis and without probable cause. The Clark County MOA has 21 specifically provided that the authority it does grant may be used only “to the extent consistent 22 16 23 Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F. Supp. 3d 933, 943 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 17 24 See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act,” available at 25 https://www.ice.gov/287g. The 287(g) program is an initiative allowing “a state or local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement 26 (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.” Id. 18 27 See U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Memorandum of Agreement, at 17 (June 28, 2016), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/287gMOA/r_287glasvegaspd.pdf (“Clark County 28 MOA”).

13 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 14 of 24

1 with State and local law.” Exhibit C.

2 45. As discussed above, Nevada law enforcement officers have no authority to arrest 3 or detain individuals for civil immigration violations. Nothing in the Clark County MOA changed 4 this fact. In fact, the Clark County MOA is not currently in effect, as of October 23, 2019. See 5 Exhibit A. 6 D. Defendants’ ICE Holds Policy and Requests by the Community for Policy 7 Change and Accountability

8 46. For approximately two and a half years, if not longer, Sheriff Lombardo and 9 LVMPD engaged in a policy, custom, and practice of granting ICE hold requests, detaining Mr. 10 Adame-Reyes and others like him past the time when they would otherwise have been released— 11 i.e., when the state law basis or other legal authority for the individuals’ detention no longer 12 existed. On information and belief, Defendants detained hundreds of individuals, solely on the9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 basis of ICE holds and past the point when they would otherwise have been released, in the months HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 preceding the arrest and detention of Mr. Adame-Reyes and thereafter. In one week alone, 15 Defendants reportedly detained 51 individuals on the basis of an ICE hold. 19 16 47. Sheriff Lombardo has long been well aware that numerous state and federal courts 17 have found law enforcement agencies liable for Fourth Amendment violations where they have 18 held individuals pursuant to ICE hold requests. On December 16, 2013, the National Immigration 19 Law Center (“NILC”) wrote to Sheriff Lombardo’s immediate predecessor, Sheriff Douglas 20 Gillespie (“Sheriff Gillespie”), informing him that the then-existing policy of refusing to allow 21 pretrial detainees with ICE holds to post bail violated state and federal law. A true and correct 22 copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D. 23 48. In July 2014, Sheriff Gillespie and the LVMPD stopped honoring ICE holds. This 24 decision followed court rulings that ICE holds had failed to provide a constitutional basis for the 25 19 26 See Megan Messerly, “As Controversial Legislation Stalls, Immigration Debate Looms Large Over Nevada”, NEV. INDEP. (Apr. 2, 2017), 27 available at https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/controversial-legislation-stalls- immigration-debate-looms-large-nevada (quoting LVMPD Director Chuck Callaway as 28 confirming that at least 51 people were turned over from CCDC custody to ICE custody on the basis of an ICE hold in a single week, between January 28 and February 3, 2017). 14 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 15 of 24

1 arrest and continued detention of individuals in local authorities’ custody or for the refusal of bail 2 for such individuals.20 3 49. Despite his knowledge that the ICE holds violated clearly established constitutional 4 rights, in or around early 2017, Sheriff Lombardo resumed LVMPD’s prior practice of honoring 5 ICE holds. 6 50. On March 15, 2018, NILC and partnering advocates wrote to Sheriff Lombardo 7 and LVMPD, explaining that their practices were unlawful, pointing to substantial legal authority 8 showing the unconstitutionality of Defendants’ ICE holds policy, 21 and requesting that the Sheriff 9 immediately cease the policy and practice of effectuating arrests without probable cause and 10 imposing detention on the basis of ICE holds. See Exhibit E. 11 51. On March 28, 2018, Sheriff Lombardo acknowledged receipt of the March 15, 2018 12 letter and rejected the request, stating that “LVMPD declines to discontinue honoring ICE9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

1 officers to accept bail or cash bonds from all detained persons without regard for an individual’s 2 immigration status. True and correct copies of the Clark County District Court and Las Vegas 3 Township Justice Court orders are attached as Exhibit G and Exhibit H, respectively. 4 53. Despite the October 2018 decisions to make cash bail and pretrial release accessible 5 for all, on information and belief, many noncitizen individuals continued to be detained at CCDC 6 if an ICE hold was placed on them, rendering the technical availability of posting bail meaningless. 7 As a result of this reality, community advocates continued to seek a direct end to Defendants’ ICE 8 holds policy and practice and accountability for the harms resulting from that policy and practice. 9 54. Defendants held to their policy and practice for another full year, before announcing 10 on October 23, 2019, that they would cease granting ICE hold requests for the time being, while 11 exploring other means of collaborating with federal immigration authorities. Exhibit A. This 12 decision followed a September 27, 2019 ruling from the Central District of California, permanently9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 enjoining ICE from issuing detainers to state and local law enforcement agencies in states where HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 there is no explicit state statute authorizing civil immigration arrests on detainers. 22 Defendants’ 15 press statement noted the Central District of California’s ruling and acknowledged that Nevada 16 lacks a statute authorizing arrests for civil immigration violations, but omitted mention of other 17 legal authority that had previously been brought to their attention. Exhibit A. 18 55. Defendants’ October 23rd press statement and asserted policy change do not redress 19 the harm that countless individuals, including Mr. Adame-Reyes, suffered at the hands of 20 Defendants and as a result of their longstanding unlawful ICE holds policy, custom, and practice. 21 Defendants’ October 23rd press statement is an admission that Defendants lacked legal authority 22 to honor the ICE hold placed on Mr. Adame-Reyes, detain him beyond his ordered release date, 23 and subject him to significant harms. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 22 28 Gonzalez, 2019 WL 4734579, at *11.

16 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 17 of 24

1 MR. ADAME-REYES’S DETENTION

2 A. The First Unconstitutional Detention of Mr. Adame-Reyes 3 56. The first arrest that led to Defendants detaining Mr. Adame-Reyes on an ICE hold 4 had many of the markings of the pretextual arrests that many others have suffered in Clark County 5 and other jurisdictions that involve local law enforcement agencies in doing the work of federal 6 immigration officers. 7 57. On August 21, 2018, Mr. Adame-Reyes was walking to a convenience store. 8 Because it was a hot day, he stopped to sit and rest by a utility pole while landscapers cut grass 9 nearby. Shortly thereafter, a LVMPD officer approached him and asked why he had stopped there. 10 Mr. Adame-Reyes does not speak English, and the officer did not speak Spanish, but Mr. Adame- 11 Reyes did his best to understand the officer. 12 58. The officer told Mr. Adame-Reyes that he was being placed under arrest. Mr.9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 Adame-Reyes asked the officer why he was being arrested for simply sitting on a sidewalk. The HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 officer responded that Mr. Adame-Reyes was being arrested for disorderly conduct. According to 15 the officer, the nearby landscapers told LVMPD that Mr. Adame-Reyes had been obstructing their 16 pathway. But at no point did the landscapers suggest to Mr. Adame-Reyes that they thought he 17 was in their way. 18 59. Shortly thereafter, a Spanish-speaking officer arrived. Mr. Adame-Reyes heard the 19 Spanish-speaking officer tell the English-speaking officer to let Mr. Adame-Reyes go, but the 20 English-speaking officer nonetheless proceeded to put his hands on Mr. Adame-Reyes. Not fully 21 understanding what was happening, Mr. Adame-Reyes pulled his arm away. The officer then 22 changed course and arrested Mr. Adame-Reyes for resisting and obstructing an officer. At the 23 time of arrest, Mr. Adame-Reyes was not advised of his Miranda rights. 24 60. Mr. Adame-Reyes was taken to CCDC. Upon arrival, a CCDC official told him he 25 would be released. According to the Las Vegas Justice Court Register of Actions, Mr. Adame- 26 Reyes was ordered “CCDC O.R.-Jail Release” on August 21, 2018, the same day he was arrested. 27 This means he should have been released on his “own recognizance,” without the requirement to 28 pay any cash bail.

17 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 18 of 24

1 61. Nonetheless, before Mr. Adame-Reyes could leave the facility, he was stopped by 2 a “287(g)” officer who demanded to know his immigration status. Mr. Adame-Reyes was not 3 informed he could decline to respond nor did he feel it was an option to do so, and accordingly, 4 Mr. Adame-Reyes followed the officer’s orders and answered his questions. The 287(g) officer 5 asked him to sign a voluntary deportation form, which he declined to do. The 287(g) officer then 6 took the form ordering “CCDC O.R.-Jail Release” from Mr. Adame-Reyes, which indicated that 7 he should be released, and instead jailed him overnight. 8 62. Meanwhile, this same 287(g) officer signed an ICE administrative arrest warrant 9 (Form I-200) but failed to assert any probable cause to believe that Mr. Adame-Reyes had 10 committed a criminal offense, which would have been the only legal support for the new arrest 11 that was being effectuated. 12 63. The next day, August 22, 2018, CCDC officials transported Mr. Adame-Reyes to a9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 second location, and he received a form indicating he would be transferred to Henderson Detention HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 Center (“HDC”), a city jail that doubles as an immigration detention center. Mr. Adame-Reyes 15 did not believe he could challenge the transfer to HDC. 16 64. On September 4, 2018, the Clark County District Attorney dismissed the charges 17 against Mr. Adame-Reyes in the Las Vegas Justice Court. On September 20, 2018, the Justice 18 Court formally closed the criminal case based on the prosecutor’s decision not to proceed with the 19 charges. 20 65. Mr. Adame-Reyes nonetheless remained detained at HDC until December 26, 21 2018, when his family paid bond to immigration authorities in the amount of $6,500, as set by an 22 immigration judge, and he was released from ICE custody. 23 B. The Second Unconstitutional Detention of Mr. Adame-Reyes 24 66. On August 17, 2019, while waiting on the street for a friend who had gone into a 25 nearby store, Mr. Adame-Reyes was again arrested and taken to CCDC. The next day, on August 26 18, 2019, Mr. Adame-Reyes was taken to a criminal case hearing, during which the prosecutor 27 declined to pursue charges. Following his hearing, Mr. Adame-Reyes was taken back to CCDC, 28 where he was detained for approximately 17 days.

18 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 19 of 24

1 67. On September 3, 2019, Mr. Adame-Reyes was taken to another criminal case 2 hearing on an outstanding misdemeanor trespass charge, which was also dismissed that day. 3 Following his hearing, Mr. Adame-Reyes was taken back to CCDC. On information and belief, 4 the decision to continue detaining Mr. Adame-Reyes despite his having been ordered released was 5 made on the basis that it was the Defendants’ policy, custom, and practice to detain individuals 6 beyond their judicially-authorized release date and time in order to transfer them into ICE custody. 7 68. The next day, on September 4, 2019, CCDC officials told Mr. Adame-Reyes that 8 they could not release him because ICE wanted to speak with him. Within the hour, and at CCDC 9 facilities, Mr. Adame-Reyes was interviewed by a 287(g) officer who asked him about his 10 immigration status. Mr. Adame-Reyes was not informed he could decline to answer questions, 11 nor did he feel it was an option to do so, and he accordingly responded to the officer’s questions. 12 The authorities then transferred Mr. Adame-Reyes to Nye County Detention Center (“NCDC”), a9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 county jail that doubles as an immigration detention center. Mr. Adame-Reyes did not believe he HOLLAND & HART LLP

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 UNLAWFUL SEIZURE 3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment 4 Against All Defendants 5 70. Mr. Adame-Reyes realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the 6 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 7 71. Through the acts alleged herein, Defendants and their employees and agents 8 violated Mr. Adame-Reyes’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure. 9 72. Defendants continued to detain Mr. Adame-Reyes after his release date and the 10 expiration of any and all state law basis to detain him. On information and belief, the decision to 11 detain Mr. Adame-Reyes was made on the sole basis that it was Defendants’ policy, custom, and 12 practice to detain individuals named by ICE in a Form I-247A and/or Form I-200. Defendants did9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

13 so despite having no legal authority under either federal or state law to continue to hold Mr. HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 Adame-Reyes in custody after his judicially authorized release date.

15 73. Because of this and the fact that ICE holds are not judicial warrants issued upon 16 probable cause that a crime has been committed, Defendants’ ICE holds policy and detention of 17 Mr. Adame-Reyes violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures 18 without a warrant or probable cause. 19 74. These unlawful actions were done with the specific intent to deprive Mr. Adame- 20 Reyes of his constitutional rights. 21 75. Mr. Adame-Reyes is informed and believes that the acts of Defendants and their 22 employees and agents were intentional, done under color of state law, and pursuant to a policy, 23 custom, or practice of Sheriff Lombardo and the LVMPD. As a direct and proximate consequence 24 of these unlawful acts, Mr. Adame-Reyes has suffered harm and is entitled to compensatory 25 damages. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

13 reasonable person would have known”). Under Nevada law, such immunity does not apply where HOLLAND & HART LLP

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 discretionary conduct violates a legal mandate. Koiro v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 69 F. 15 Supp. 3d 1061, 1074 (D. Nev. 2014). 16 78. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Adame-Reyes has sustained, and will 17 continue to sustain, without limitation, emotional and economic injuries in the form of loss of 18 freedom, lost income, emotional distress, and loss of the companionship of his family. 19 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 20 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 21 Fourteenth Amendment 22 Against All Defendants 23 79. Mr. Adame-Reyes realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the 24 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 25 80. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no person may be 26 deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 27 /// 28

21 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 22 of 24

1 81. Without any basis in federal or state law, Defendants denied Mr. Adame-Reyes his 2 liberty and freedom due solely to the existence of an ICE hold and without probable cause. This 3 deprived Mr. Adame-Reyes of his liberty without the due process of law. 4 82. Mr. Adame-Reyes is informed and believes that the acts of Defendants and their 5 employees and agents were intentional, done under color of state law, and pursuant to a policy, 6 custom, or practice of Sheriff Lombardo and the LVMPD. 7 83. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Adame-Reyes has sustained, and will 8 continue to sustain, without limitation, emotional and economic injuries in the form of loss of 9 freedom, lost income, emotional distress, and loss of the companionship of his family. 10 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 11 FALSE IMPRISONMENT 12 Against All Defendants9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

15 85. Defendants intentionally imprisoned Mr. Adame-Reyes by force. 16 86. Defendants deprived Mr. Adame-Reyes of his liberty without legal cause of 17 justification and in violation of Nevada law. 18 87. Defendants non-consensually and intentionally confined Mr. Adame-Reyes against 19 his will without lawful privilege. 20 88. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Adame-Reyes has sustained, and will 21 continue to sustain, without limitation, emotional and economic injuries in the form of loss of 22 freedom, lost income, emotional distress, and loss of the companionship of his family. 23 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 25 Against All Defendants 26 89. Mr. Adame-Reyes realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the 27 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 28 /// 22 Case 2:20-cv-00262-APG-VCF Document 1 Filed 02/06/20 Page 23 of 24

2 Mr. Adame-Reyes beyond the time he was entitled to be released for the sole purpose of ensuring 3 ICE would be able to detain and institute removal proceedings against him. 4 91. Defendants intended to cause Mr. Adame-Reyes emotional distress by way of 5 keeping him detained in jail beyond his judicially authorized release date and continuing to deprive 6 him of his freedom and family. 7 92. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Adame-Reyes has suffered 8 severe and extreme emotional distress resulting from the deprivation of his freedom, his loss of 9 ability to support himself financially, and the loss of the companionship of his family. 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DAVID ADAME-REYES request entry of judgment in favor of himself 12 and against Defendants JOSEPH LOMBARDO, in his Individual Capacity and in his Official9555 HILLWOOD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR

LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

14 METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, as follows:

15 A. For declaratory relief that Defendants’ policy, custom, and practice of honoring 16 ICE holds and imposing arrest and detention based on such holds and without the necessary 17 probable cause is unlawful under state and federal law; 18 B. For compensatory damages, in the amount to be proven at trial; 19 C. For interest; 20 D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees; and 21 E. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25